I agree with George, Griffin and Kristine -- and support Kristine's proposed solution.  We do have day jobs :-). Best, Kathy On 1/28/2019 5:37 PM, Dorrain, Kristine via Gnso-rpm-sunrise wrote:

+1 to George and Griffin.

I also support more manageable assignments. Staff has done an extraordinary amount of work in reviewing the additional material and providing an initial summary and may be in a good position to suggest how long each review took them (so we can know this ahead of time). I'm personally willing to commit 1-2 hours of homework time per subteam call, but more than that isn't feasible.

As a starting point, so I'm not just casting stones, in preparation for this week's call, might I suggest we all focus on a deep dive on the first two or three sources (since George said it took four hours to review the first four sources) and then look for information for ALL of the charter questions (if you're on both sub teams, you would cross reference the sources against both tabs in the spreadsheet). That will hopefully be a more manageable start.

Best,

Kristine

-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-rpm-trademark [mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Griffin Barnett Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 2:09 PM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org; gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] RPM sub team homework assignments need to be "bite-sized"

I would support George's suggestion of breaking up current HW assignments into smaller, more manageable bits. I know we are attempting to keep to an aggressive work plan timeline, but overwhelming members with HW to the point where we cannot possibly complete it all in a timely manner results in paralysis (even among the most active of us) that is counterproductive.

Sincerely,

Griffin

Griffin M. Barnett Associate Winterfeldt IP Group

-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-rpm-trademark [mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 5:01 PM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org; gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] RPM sub team homework assignments need to be "bite-sized"

(cross-posting to both sub team lists)

Hi folks,

I spent about 4 hours today attempting the sub team homework assignments for this week (tomorrow), and have only gone through the first four (of the twelve) source documents, to try to cross-reference relevant data against the charter questions. I spoke with a couple of other very active sub team members who are also concerned about the workload for this week.

Perhaps different members have different expectations on the amount of outside time expected to be devoted between calls, but for myself, 4 hours is already pushing things (it typically took me around that much time for the past homework assignments too).

I think we need to discuss breaking the tasks down into more bite-sized pieces, as there was just too much to review for this week. I know staff has already attempted to pick out relevant data for each charter question, but it wouldn't be a "review" if we as sub team members didn't read the source documents ourselves independently, and simply relied on what staff provided.

Also, it might have been easier to do the review if staff input was in the (currently) blank Google docs, rather than in the spreadsheet tabs, as even on a 27" monitor, it was difficult to compare their input with my own as I was reading the various source documents, and tried to switch multiple tabs/documents.

If others share these concerns, please do take a moment to comment or provide suggestions on ideal expected duration of assignments (in hours), technical impediments, etc.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-trademark mailing list Gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-trademark _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-trademark mailing list Gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-trademark _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Hi folks, I took a few minutes this morning to analyze the two sub teams, and here's what I found: TM Claims: 18 members + 3 co-chairs = 21 individuals (source: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Members+and+email+archives+... ) Sunrise: 17 members + 3 co-chairs = 20 individuals (source: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Members%2C+email+archives+-... ) People in both sub-teams: 12 Claudio DiGangi George Kirikos Greg Shatan Griffin Barnett Kristine Dorrain Paul McGrady Scott Austin Susan Payne Zak Muscovitch Brian Beckham (co-chair) Kathy Kleiman (co-chair) Phil Corwin (co-chair) Prior "homework assignments" (excluding today's): names of *anyone* filling out Google docs (binary metric, regardless of *quantity* of input into those docs): TM Claims: 5 docs (each linked to via https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/2019-January/000161.html) George Kirikos Kristine Dorrain Griffin Barnett Rebecca Tushnet Kathy Kleiman Maxim Alzoba*** (not actually a member of TM Claims sub team!) Sunrise: 14 docs (linked to via https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-January/000158.html) George Kirikos Kristine Dorrain Griffin Barnett Maxim Alzoba Kathy Kleiman Susan Payne Scott Austin John McElwaine Michael Karanicolas Note: I'm not trying to criticize anyone who's not on the above lists, nor aggrandize anyone on it. Folks are participating in different ways. But, as we'll see on today's calls, if those Google Docs are empty, then we're not making much progress. As Griffin rightly said, it can lead to paralysis if the assigned tasks are unreasonably time consuming relative to expectations. Looking at it from 40,000 feet, I think a fair question is: How much "assigned homework" (between calls) is reasonable for sub team members? There's also obviously 1 hour for the call itself, and maybe 30 minutes to an hour of prep immediately before each call (to review the input into the Google docs by others). I've already given my own thoughts on this previously (as has Kristine), but hope to understand how others feel. Simply showing up for the calls isn't going to be enough to get through all the work. I look forward to today's calls. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 5:37 PM Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com> wrote:

+1 to George and Griffin.

I also support more manageable assignments. Staff has done an extraordinary amount of work in reviewing the additional material and providing an initial summary and may be in a good position to suggest how long each review took them (so we can know this ahead of time). I'm personally willing to commit 1-2 hours of homework time per subteam call, but more than that isn't feasible.

As a starting point, so I'm not just casting stones, in preparation for this week's call, might I suggest we all focus on a deep dive on the first two or three sources (since George said it took four hours to review the first four sources) and then look for information for ALL of the charter questions (if you're on both sub teams, you would cross reference the sources against both tabs in the spreadsheet). That will hopefully be a more manageable start.

Best,

Kristine

-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-rpm-trademark [mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Griffin Barnett Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 2:09 PM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org; gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] RPM sub team homework assignments need to be "bite-sized"

I would support George's suggestion of breaking up current HW assignments into smaller, more manageable bits. I know we are attempting to keep to an aggressive work plan timeline, but overwhelming members with HW to the point where we cannot possibly complete it all in a timely manner results in paralysis (even among the most active of us) that is counterproductive.

Sincerely,

Griffin

Griffin M. Barnett Associate Winterfeldt IP Group

-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-rpm-trademark [mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 5:01 PM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org; gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] RPM sub team homework assignments need to be "bite-sized"

(cross-posting to both sub team lists)

Hi folks,

I spent about 4 hours today attempting the sub team homework assignments for this week (tomorrow), and have only gone through the first four (of the twelve) source documents, to try to cross-reference relevant data against the charter questions. I spoke with a couple of other very active sub team members who are also concerned about the workload for this week.

Perhaps different members have different expectations on the amount of outside time expected to be devoted between calls, but for myself, 4 hours is already pushing things (it typically took me around that much time for the past homework assignments too).

I think we need to discuss breaking the tasks down into more bite-sized pieces, as there was just too much to review for this week. I know staff has already attempted to pick out relevant data for each charter question, but it wouldn't be a "review" if we as sub team members didn't read the source documents ourselves independently, and simply relied on what staff provided.

Also, it might have been easier to do the review if staff input was in the (currently) blank Google docs, rather than in the spreadsheet tabs, as even on a 27" monitor, it was difficult to compare their input with my own as I was reading the various source documents, and tried to switch multiple tabs/documents.

If others share these concerns, please do take a moment to comment or provide suggestions on ideal expected duration of assignments (in hours), technical impediments, etc.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-trademark mailing list Gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-trademark _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-trademark mailing list Gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-trademark

Hi Maxim, Thanks for your email. Yes, you did state that in the TM Claims document comment (that's why I put an asterisk next to it, to make it clear it wasn't actually from a sub team member). It wasn't meant as any criticism at all (if anything, it's a compliment!). Your input on the Google docs was valuable. You raise a point indirectly, whether it's even best to have the 2 separate sub teams, if we don't have that expertise covered in both of them. We do have overlapping members (12 on both sub teams). But, that means 9 of the 21 TM Claims people are only on that sub team, and 8 of 20 the Sunrise people are only on Sunrise. In other words, we have 12+9+8 = 29 people participating in at least one sub team, with 12 of those 29 on both. There are overlapping source documents too, shared by both sub teams. My guess is that it's best to stick with the 2 separate sub teams, but perhaps find ways to better utilize all these human resources that we have (29 people have stepped up and volunteered to do more work, relative to those not participating on the sub teams at present). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:16 AM Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello George,

I am not a member for the TMCH subteam, and I think I reflected that in the comments.

If at this stage my comments are not to be taken into account, most probably I will add it at later stages.

One of the issues is that we do not have other folks with active participation, who can cover issues of GEOs (I reached out to geoTLDs ExCom about QLP, ALP, Reserved names, Limited periods, Claims, so what I wrote about those periods is not just my opinion), and I believe that we need to avoid situations when lack of clarity in understanding of some of the items relevant to that cause confusion.

Sincerely Yours,

Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID

m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger

Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)

On 30 Jan 2019, at 17:08, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:

Hi folks,

I took a few minutes this morning to analyze the two sub teams, and here's what I found:

TM Claims: 18 members + 3 co-chairs = 21 individuals (source: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Members+and+email+archives+... )

Sunrise: 17 members + 3 co-chairs = 20 individuals (source: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Members%2C+email+archives+-... )

People in both sub-teams: 12

Claudio DiGangi George Kirikos Greg Shatan Griffin Barnett Kristine Dorrain Paul McGrady Scott Austin Susan Payne Zak Muscovitch Brian Beckham (co-chair) Kathy Kleiman (co-chair) Phil Corwin (co-chair)

Prior "homework assignments" (excluding today's): names of *anyone* filling out Google docs (binary metric, regardless of *quantity* of input into those docs):

TM Claims: 5 docs (each linked to via https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/2019-January/000161.html)

George Kirikos Kristine Dorrain Griffin Barnett Rebecca Tushnet Kathy Kleiman Maxim Alzoba*** (not actually a member of TM Claims sub team!)

Sunrise: 14 docs (linked to via https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-January/000158.html)

George Kirikos Kristine Dorrain Griffin Barnett Maxim Alzoba Kathy Kleiman Susan Payne Scott Austin John McElwaine Michael Karanicolas

Note: I'm not trying to criticize anyone who's not on the above lists, nor aggrandize anyone on it. Folks are participating in different ways. But, as we'll see on today's calls, if those Google Docs are empty, then we're not making much progress. As Griffin rightly said, it can lead to paralysis if the assigned tasks are unreasonably time consuming relative to expectations.

Looking at it from 40,000 feet, I think a fair question is: How much "assigned homework" (between calls) is reasonable for sub team members? There's also obviously 1 hour for the call itself, and maybe 30 minutes to an hour of prep immediately before each call (to review the input into the Google docs by others). I've already given my own thoughts on this previously (as has Kristine), but hope to understand how others feel. Simply showing up for the calls isn't going to be enough to get through all the work.

I look forward to today's calls.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 5:37 PM Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com> wrote:

+1 to George and Griffin.

I also support more manageable assignments. Staff has done an extraordinary amount of work in reviewing the additional material and providing an initial summary and may be in a good position to suggest how long each review took them (so we can know this ahead of time). I'm personally willing to commit 1-2 hours of homework time per subteam call, but more than that isn't feasible.

As a starting point, so I'm not just casting stones, in preparation for this week's call, might I suggest we all focus on a deep dive on the first two or three sources (since George said it took four hours to review the first four sources) and then look for information for ALL of the charter questions (if you're on both sub teams, you would cross reference the sources against both tabs in the spreadsheet). That will hopefully be a more manageable start.

Best,

Kristine

-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-rpm-trademark [mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Griffin Barnett Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 2:09 PM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org; gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] RPM sub team homework assignments need to be "bite-sized"

I would support George's suggestion of breaking up current HW assignments into smaller, more manageable bits. I know we are attempting to keep to an aggressive work plan timeline, but overwhelming members with HW to the point where we cannot possibly complete it all in a timely manner results in paralysis (even among the most active of us) that is counterproductive.

Sincerely,

Griffin

Griffin M. Barnett Associate Winterfeldt IP Group

-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-rpm-trademark [mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 5:01 PM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org; gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] RPM sub team homework assignments need to be "bite-sized"

(cross-posting to both sub team lists)

Hi folks,

I spent about 4 hours today attempting the sub team homework assignments for this week (tomorrow), and have only gone through the first four (of the twelve) source documents, to try to cross-reference relevant data against the charter questions. I spoke with a couple of other very active sub team members who are also concerned about the workload for this week.

Perhaps different members have different expectations on the amount of outside time expected to be devoted between calls, but for myself, 4 hours is already pushing things (it typically took me around that much time for the past homework assignments too).

I think we need to discuss breaking the tasks down into more bite-sized pieces, as there was just too much to review for this week. I know staff has already attempted to pick out relevant data for each charter question, but it wouldn't be a "review" if we as sub team members didn't read the source documents ourselves independently, and simply relied on what staff provided.

Also, it might have been easier to do the review if staff input was in the (currently) blank Google docs, rather than in the spreadsheet tabs, as even on a 27" monitor, it was difficult to compare their input with my own as I was reading the various source documents, and tried to switch multiple tabs/documents.

If others share these concerns, please do take a moment to comment or provide suggestions on ideal expected duration of assignments (in hours), technical impediments, etc.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-trademark mailing list Gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-trademark _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-trademark mailing list Gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-trademark

_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise

FYI, I've perused next week's assigned homework. Despite the objections over the past couple of weeks, the workload has actually been *increased*! We appear to be in some Bizarro World: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro_World where everything is inverted. Based on length and word density compared to past assignments, I'd expect that it would take 8 to 10 hours to read, analyze and compile into the 19 Google docs (the "read" past is the easiest). This is on top of the 90 minutes to 2 hours of prep time before calls (to review input), and the 2 hour calls themselves (which might be 2.5 hours this coming week). Even based on past homework assignments, we know only a handful of people (Kristine, Kathy, Griffin and myself) were filling out the Google Docs. It was suggested on the past call that folks were "doing the homework, but had nothing more to add than had already been input." To me, that appears completely indistinguishable from someone who didn't do the homework at all. So, next week will be different. There's a concept in the NBA called "load management", where the star players are rested, to ensure they have high energy for the playoffs: http://www.nba.com/article/2019/02/02/lebron-james-out-vs-warriors For this coming week, I will do the exact "median" input provided by the rest of the sub teams for all the past weeks in the Google Docs spreadsheet, which was **zero**. This will give others the opportunity to "show their stuff" and "shine", because there will be no baseline input provided by me. I would suggest to Kristine, Kathy and Griffin that they might want to consider doing the same, to let others shine, lest they crowd out the efforts of others who've been pining to fill out the Google Docs, but "had nothing more to add". Apparently, it's such an easy job, and I wouldn't want to crowd out the visibility of their to date unseen Herculean efforts. I'll resume my input into the Google Docs only when the Section 3.7 appeal is properly dealt with. Until then, I'll join with the majority and input the exact same amount into the Google Docs as they are doing (namely zero). I'll be watching Gladiator and Spartacus this weekend! Have a great weekend! ;-) Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 12:24 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:

Hi fellow sub team members,

Since my concerns haven't been addressed on the main mailing list, I'm being compelled to file a Section 3.7 appeal shortly (probably later today, or tomorrow), in order to make sure that we have the resources/time we need to actually do the work. The section 3.7 appeal is meant to be constructive, not to obstruct our work, but to call to the attention of the "powers that be" the realities on the ground that they appear to not be aware of or are ignoring. In preparing my notes for the Section 3.7 appeal, I thought I'd share with you some data.

For those who haven't started this week's "homework" yet, the 4 documents (first 4; 8 more to go) amount to approximately 27 pages. Those need to be read, analyzed, and then cross-referenced against the Charter questions.

For TM Claims, there are 5 charter questions (some with multiple sub-parts in the them). For Sunrise, there are 12 charter questions, a preamble, and Q5 was broken into 2 parts, so 14 documents used for the cross-referencing, again, some with multiple sub-parts. So, for those on both sub teams, that's a total of 19 documents where we need to be potentially submitting inputs/analysis/citations.

For those who've actually attempted this in the past, especially in depth (I've named names earlier in this thread, but the core group so far has really been Griffin, Kristine, Kathy and myself), you know first hand how time consuming this is. I think despite this, this week's homework is doable (in say 4 hours or less).

BUT, if you've not done this already, open the other 8 links (i.e. the other 8 documents), and see what's coming up, namely more than 250 more pages (some of it single-spaced!) [e.g. 67 + 2 + 3 pages for the Analysis Group stuff, 20 + 74 pages for INTA, and so on]

If you've not fainted yet, let me repeat, that's 250+ more pages (not counting the 27 pages for this week).

For those still with us (perhaps after being administered CPR, etc. ... :-) ), according to our updated process:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html

we are supposed to be finished that task in only 1 more meeting on February 13, 2019 (i.e. Feb 6, this coming week, is for the first 27 pages). And not only that, February 13 is also the date to consider that "additional data" which is to be submitted by Feb 8 (this Friday) -- I've already posted on the main mailing list how unreasonable that other deadline is (won't say more here).

Anyhow, for those who haven't spoken up yet, I ask you to consider how those 250+ pages will be read, analyzed, and cross-referenced against the Charter questions by February 13 (starting from Feb 6, after we finish this week's homework).

One of the constructive suggestions I will make is that all future homework assignments (both in sub teams, and in the main working group) have an ***explicit*** stated time estimate attached to it. This should then be compared with an "expected time contribution" by members. I asked this before (wasn't a rhetorical question!) but would love to know how much time others are expecting to contribute to this subteam (or even the main RPM team) per week.

For me, as I mentioned before, I can do 4 hours of "homework" a week, plus I spend between 90 minutes and 2 hours preparing for the calls (i.e. before the scheduled calls, reading others' input on the homework, and getting my thoughts in order to be able to engage in a discussion on reconciling all the points of view, etc.), plus the 2 hours for the calls themselves. That's 8 hours per week! I think that's more than one can reasonably expect, for an unpaid volunteer.

Others have suggested that 2 hours of "homework" time might be reasonable (that's on top of the 1 or 2 hours for the calls, and prep).

I'll have other constructive suggestions as well (e.g. perhaps having a call early in the week of March 6, where no sub team calls are scheduled, as well as another call late in the week of March 20, which might give us 2 more productive weeks to be able to accomplish all that's ahead of us.

I could be doing better things on Super Bowl Sunday, but ultimately we're going to have to have this discussion at some point (either through the Section 3.7 appeal, or on the sub team call this Wednesday, or on the mailing list now), so I thought I'd give you a heads-up, as things are untenable at present.

Enjoy the big game!

Sincerely,

George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

P.S. I'll be at home writing up the section 3.7 appeal this afternoon (Toronto time), if anyone wants to discuss in real-time by phone (much easier than writing these emails!). Or, we can talk next week.

Concerns duly noted. Let's see how far we get this Wednesday. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Griffin Barnett Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 5:09 PM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org; gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Gnso-rpm-trademark] RPM sub team homework assignments need to be "bite-sized" I would support George's suggestion of breaking up current HW assignments into smaller, more manageable bits. I know we are attempting to keep to an aggressive work plan timeline, but overwhelming members with HW to the point where we cannot possibly complete it all in a timely manner results in paralysis (even among the most active of us) that is counterproductive. Sincerely, Griffin Griffin M. Barnett Associate Winterfeldt IP Group -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-rpm-trademark [mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 5:01 PM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org; gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] RPM sub team homework assignments need to be "bite-sized" (cross-posting to both sub team lists) Hi folks, I spent about 4 hours today attempting the sub team homework assignments for this week (tomorrow), and have only gone through the first four (of the twelve) source documents, to try to cross-reference relevant data against the charter questions. I spoke with a couple of other very active sub team members who are also concerned about the workload for this week. Perhaps different members have different expectations on the amount of outside time expected to be devoted between calls, but for myself, 4 hours is already pushing things (it typically took me around that much time for the past homework assignments too). I think we need to discuss breaking the tasks down into more bite-sized pieces, as there was just too much to review for this week. I know staff has already attempted to pick out relevant data for each charter question, but it wouldn't be a "review" if we as sub team members didn't read the source documents ourselves independently, and simply relied on what staff provided. Also, it might have been easier to do the review if staff input was in the (currently) blank Google docs, rather than in the spreadsheet tabs, as even on a 27" monitor, it was difficult to compare their input with my own as I was reading the various source documents, and tried to switch multiple tabs/documents. If others share these concerns, please do take a moment to comment or provide suggestions on ideal expected duration of assignments (in hours), technical impediments, etc. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-trademark mailing list Gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-trademark _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise